If they have to live in a small appartment and don't even own a tiny patch of land to garden and play, they want to force you to live like that too. You will own nothing.
Not to mention the fantasy assumption that they are going to leave undeveloped green space for trees around the urban high-rise you moved in to from your single-family home instead of filling every space around you with similar high-density high rises.
I live in a city that purports itself as "green"; tons of hippies and student types, all politicians are "environmentalists" etc.
Last year, without batting an eye, city council voting to take an acre of greenspace by my building and turn it into "Permanent Supportive Housing"; 30 single units specifically built to warehouse the homeless. City bylaws explicitely state that the space they're using is required to stay green for the density we have here (it's also directly in the path of hundreds of children walking to school). They're just like "Nah, we vote to ignore that law".
Most importantly for these types, I suspect, the suburban house is yours, so you get to make decisions about selling a chunk of it off for a new house to be built.
If it's all apartments, owned by the state (or corporation), these budding authoritarians have already seen the possibilities to install as many soon-to-be-crack-dens (because nothing says "liberal city" like rampant crime and drug problems) as they want without you having any possibility of interfering.
I spent some time living in a major city. While it was fun, the absolute worst part was no nature access. A park doesn't cut it, and taking a train an hour and a half for a hike wasn't always feasible. It's ultimately an unsatisfactory way of living and I do think there is some jealousy.
Small towns of mixed sub-urb/rural sprawl with a "downtown core" of maybe three hundred acres of centralized economics is the way to go. The drawback to it is you'll have likely two-three big businesses "dominate" the town, and their success or failure will impact the town's QoL, but I think the benefits outweigh that risk.
If they have to live in a small appartment and don't even own a tiny patch of land to garden and play, they want to force you to live like that too. You will own nothing.
Not to mention the fantasy assumption that they are going to leave undeveloped green space for trees around the urban high-rise you moved in to from your single-family home instead of filling every space around you with similar high-density high rises.
Yep. Green space to them is just temporary empty space that hasn't been filled with a tent city/tenements yet.
Spot on.
I live in a city that purports itself as "green"; tons of hippies and student types, all politicians are "environmentalists" etc.
Last year, without batting an eye, city council voting to take an acre of greenspace by my building and turn it into "Permanent Supportive Housing"; 30 single units specifically built to warehouse the homeless. City bylaws explicitely state that the space they're using is required to stay green for the density we have here (it's also directly in the path of hundreds of children walking to school). They're just like "Nah, we vote to ignore that law".
No such thing as a "green" city.
Most importantly for these types, I suspect, the suburban house is yours, so you get to make decisions about selling a chunk of it off for a new house to be built.
If it's all apartments, owned by the state (or corporation), these budding authoritarians have already seen the possibilities to install as many soon-to-be-crack-dens (because nothing says "liberal city" like rampant crime and drug problems) as they want without you having any possibility of interfering.
I spent some time living in a major city. While it was fun, the absolute worst part was no nature access. A park doesn't cut it, and taking a train an hour and a half for a hike wasn't always feasible. It's ultimately an unsatisfactory way of living and I do think there is some jealousy.
Small towns of mixed sub-urb/rural sprawl with a "downtown core" of maybe three hundred acres of centralized economics is the way to go. The drawback to it is you'll have likely two-three big businesses "dominate" the town, and their success or failure will impact the town's QoL, but I think the benefits outweigh that risk.
If you pay property taxes, you still own nothing.